1. “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992.

2. “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of “liberalism” they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, for many years U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate.

3. “Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government – a bureaucratic elite.” Senator William Jenner, 1954

4. “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

5. “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933

6. “The depression was the calculated ‘shearing’ of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market….The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.” Curtis Dall, FDR’s son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law

7. “The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive ‘policies’ and ‘Plans’ of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word ‘socialism’, but what else can one call it?”H.G. Wells ‘The New World Order‘, 1939

8. “Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.” President George Bush Texas A&M University 1989

9. “Under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner. . . .” Fabian Socialist Bernard Shaw in his Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928.

10. “We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” Mikhail Gorbachev 1987

11. “National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.” Adolph Hitler during World War II

12. “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” President Woodrow Wilson 1916

13. “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Ford

14. “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” – Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

15. “Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

16. “It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go…. We are living in the end of the sovereign states…. In the great struggle to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish…. Countless people… will hate the new world order…. and will die protesting against it.” – H.G. Wells, in his book, “The New World Order”, 1940

17. “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” – Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization

18. “We need a program of psycho-surgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. . . Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. . . . We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electronic stimulation of the brain.” Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School, Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974.

19. “One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will become subjects of the New World Order.” From The National Educator, K.M. Heaton

20. “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” – David Rockefeller

21. “No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation.” David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

22. “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.” Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

Could we become a nation of digital squealers? Will technology go beyond state-sponsored surveillance of our behavior and turn us all into a society of snitches?

The ubiquity of smartphones has put James Bond-style spy tools into everyone’s hand, enabling us to secretly record video, audio and pictures, and instantly stream it all online. That can be a good thing when you catch junior hitting a home run and then send the video to grandma, or tag a family reunion picture for relatives who couldn’t attend. But what if you snap a scofflaw parked in an illegal space and send the image to the local constabulary? That’s what at least one company has proposed doing with an app.

Dubbed SpotSquad, the app is the brainchild of a Canadian startup in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The company did not respond to a press inquiry, but the program raises some interesting possibilities. Peeved citizens could take pictures (complete with license plate numbers) of cars parked in, say, spaces intended for handicapped drivers, then beam the shot to parking patrols, who would in turn issue tickets. As an added incentive tipsters could get a cut of the ticket fine.

In essence, it turns everyone into a cop. No more double parking to pick up the kids or drop off your date. Some people may be appalled by the idea, but we’re creeping slowly [or not so slowly] to the point where this may become an everyday occurrence.

For example, what was once simply a guaranteed way to fail your driving test, not coming to a complete halt at a stop sign is going to soon garner you an automatic ticket. In Washington, D.C., authorities are testing stop-sign cameras that wouldautomatically issue tickets to practitioners of the infamous rolling stop. In D.C. they’re keen on camera enforcement — and for good reason. Cameras bring in money, lots of money!

A stop sign camera has been spotted in the District.This picture is from Van Ness St. and 42nd St. in northwest D.C.

The cameras have proven to be highly profitable. In fiscal 2012, traffic enforcement devices brought $84.9 million into the District’s coffers.

Last year, it was reported that a single speed camera in Washington, D.C., had raked in $11.6 million in fines over the course of two years. Wouldn’t it be great if each us got a cut of that revenue? Why not set up citizen speed traps?

Police and elected officials maintain that it’s not about the money. The cameras have made roadways and school zones safer, they said.

While that figure sounds inflated, the speed cameras have certainly cost drivers in the nation’s capital a pretty penny. Other municipalities have toyed with such surveillance, installing and then later eliminating such cameras, such as in Arizona and San Diego. Red light cameras are hidden in some cities; others warn drivers with conspicuous signs.

Red light cameras may save lives — if they are installed at dangerous intersections, the length of the yellow light is increased, and they are clearly marked. However, installing them at every corner trying to catch drivers making mistakes may not be the way to go. It’s a matter of over-policing. Why not, for example, start docking poor parallel parkers with a fine? It would, strictly speaking be legal (you’re too far or too close to the curb) and technologically possible but is it the right thing to do? Is that the kind of town you want to live in?

Some municipalities have jumped on the LPR (or license-plate reader) bandwagon as well, monitoring every vehicle to detect undesirables entering their town. Ostensibly a way for the police to find stolen cars or those reportedly involved in a crime, the LPR databases are also storing travel information on innocent motorists. And the information can be secretly used against you. In New York City, for example, the police department has been accused of using LPR programs to scan cars near mosques in order to find out who was attending services.

Fear about terrorism is habitually used to quell criticism of such practices. But where will the surveillance stop in a technologically over-heated environment where everyone has a hand-held digital spy kit or is (eventually) wearing Google Glass video monitors? Is the smallest misstep or mistake going to invoke an automatic fine? When you looked away, your gum wrapper toss missed the garbage pail. You jaywalked in a hurry to catch the bus.

Facial Recognition Apps: How Google & Apple Spy on You

In a press conference, President Obama tried again to mollify critics by saying that people simply needed to be convinced that no abuses of government surveillance could occur. What he didn’t seem to realize (or admit) is that constant, secret surveillance of all of us is already an abuse.

But who are we going to blame when we’ve all become a bunch of digital squealers?

Canadian app SpotSquad aims to crowd source parking enforcement with a cash incentive

App uses GPS-tagged pictures and optical character recognition to record license plate numbers

Cash-in on parking violations

SpotSquad gives users a portion of the parking fine as a reward for reporting illegally-parked cars, according to FoxNews.com.

Developed by a 10-person Canadian tech startup in Winnipeg, the app aims to crowd source parking enforcement.

Scroll down for demo video

Target: Users of a moblie app SpotSquad can get a cut of the fine when they report illegally-parked cars

The app is simple enough: When users spot a car parked illegally, they snap a picture. The picture is tagged with a GPS location and optical character recognition records the car’s license plate number. Users also choose from a drop-down list of parking infractions, from ‘time expired’ to ‘double parked’.

Using the car’s location, a report is automatically sent to the parking lot’s operator or local law enforcement, who dispatch personnel to issue a ticket or have the car towed.

Click on image then scroll down on page to see video:

Mobile app lets drivers get cash for reporting illegally parked..

The tentative business model has the company taking a percentage of the fine paid by a driver and splitting it with the user who reported the car in the first place. If users submit multiple successful reports, they’ll get paid at an increasing rate and will be awarded traditional military ranks from Private to General. Users can also choose to give their cut to charity.

Chris Johnson, one of the app’s co-founders, told CTVNews that they believe lots of people are open to the concept because of the number of accounts set up already.

Spotting: The app’s users will first choose from a drop-down list of parking violations and snap a picture, which digitally records the GPS location of a car and its license plate number

‘We’re getting the feeling this is the kind of thing everyone [is going to want to have] on their phone but no one admits to,’ he said.

Report: When users rack-up a lot of successful reports, they’ll get an increasingly larger cut of the parking fine, which is first paid to the mobile company

“The photos and users’ reports can’t be used in court, so official evidence must be collected by those parking operators and traffic cops who get word of the violation.”

‘We’re open to having conversations anywhere where there’s parking that needs to be controlled.”

A similar, though “less self-serving,” app is already used in America.

Parking Mobility allows trained volunteers to snap shots of cars illegally parked in disabled spots. A portion of the fines from those reports are given to the user’s favorite charity.

The Canadian app might cause some legal issues, said lawyer Brian Bowman. Users wouldn’t be bound by the same privacy laws as public sector workers who document illegally parked cars.

‘You are empowering citizens and paying them to arguably act as an agent for you,’ Bowman said.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

War Powers Resolutionrequires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past by President Reaganin regards to the aid to theContras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has “Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”, while the President is commander-in-chief of the military, “when called into the actual Service of the United States” (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war.

S.J.Res. 23 (107th):

A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

9/14/2001. Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

But the fact that a lot of people think a law is unconstitutional does not necessarily make it unconstitutional. (Right now, many people think Obamacare is unconstitutional (I most certainly do!), but five Supreme Court justices ruled otherwise.) If it is indeed unconstitutional, it would be good to get the Supreme Court to sort this out tout de suite. Because if it isn’t, it has been violated fairly regularly, and we will see it violated again soon.

The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or “possessions” (treasures, i.e. resources), or its armed forces” — a threshold Syria simply does not meet. If Assad’s forces shoot at our ships offshore, Obama can rain hell down upon him, but absent that “national emergency,” he has to go to Congress — as President Bush did for Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have some members of Congress insisting that the law is the opposite of what it is. Representative Pete King (R., N.Y.) told BuzzFeed, “We should not be talking about or insisting on congressional approval.”King added, “If he wants to get approval from Congress, he can, but he does not have to.”

So how does the United nations fit in? After all, that is one of the cornerstones of their “Purposes and Principles.”

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

In a letter to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and President of the Security Council Maria Cristina Perceval, Syrian U.N. envoy Ambassador Bashar Ja‘afaricalled on “the U.N. Secretary General to shoulder his responsibilities for preventing any aggression on Syria and pushing forward reaching a political solution to the crisis in Syria”

He called on the Security Council to “maintain its role as a safety valve to prevent the absurd use of force out of the frame of international legitimacy.”

Ja’afari said Kerry had “adopted old stories fabricated by terrorists” based on fake photos from the internet.

But the fact that a lot of people think a law is unconstitutional does not necessarily make it unconstitutional. (Right now, many people think Obamacare is unconstitutional, but five Supreme Court justices ruled otherwise.) If it is indeed unconstitutional, it would be good to get the Supreme Court to sort this out tout de suite. Because if it isn’t, it has been violated fairly regularly, and we may see it violated again soon.

The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” — a threshold Syria simply does not meet. If Assad’s forces shoot at our ships offshore, Obama can rain hell down upon him, but absent that “national emergency,” he suppose to go to Congress. But will he?

A picture released by the US Navy shows an F/A-18C Hornet assigned to the Rampagers of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 83 preparing to launch from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) on June 17, 2013 in the Mediterranean Sea. (AFP Photo/US Navy)

As the United States, along with its European and “Israeli allies,” prepares to launch yet another illegal war of aggression in the Middle East, the geopolitics of the US strategy could not be more apparent.

Despite the high-minded talk of “humanitarianism,” the US is advancing a transparently neo–colonialist agenda aimed at securing hegemony in the region by destroying what little opposition remains.

Lights…camera…war!

The images and videos flooding the internet since last week purport to show ‘evidence’ of a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Assad regime. This development neatly and conveniently coincides with the declaration by the Obama administration that the use of such weapons constitutes a ‘red line’, merely a euphemism for the point at which the US would feel emboldened to militarily intervene on behalf of the rebels.

And so, as news outlets report on the ‘likely use of chemical weapons’ by Damascus without anything other than unverifiable hearsay and ambiguous video footage, the drumbeat of war gets louder and louder.

A clear-thinking and rational political analyst would immediately be suspicious about the attack considering the presence of international chemical weapons investigators in Syria, as well as the fact that Damascus was undeniably winning the war against the jihadi rebel factions in cities like Qussair, Homs, Aleppo and elsewhere. That Assad would sabotage his own military victories and provide the perfect pretext for a foreign intervention is not only far-fetched, it runs contrary to his own record throughout this conflict. Remember that Damascus has shown restraint in the face of international war crimes committed against it by Israel, Turkey and other regional actors who have been fomenting the conflict in Syria for more than two years.

An image grab taken from a video shows an opposition fighter firing an rocket propelled grenade (RPG) on August 26, 2013 during clashes with regime forces over the strategic area of Khanasser, situated on the only road linking Aleppo to central Syria. (AFP Photo)

And so we see once again that we are living in what French philosopher and cultural critic Guy Debord called ‘The Society of the Spectacle’– a world in which representation of truth is more important than truth itself, where videos of unknown origin and without verification take the place of authentic evidence and investigation, where wars that will destroy millions of lives and future generations are manufactured by paid actors on television who merely masquerade as journalists.

All this leads many to wonder whether the United States is really as stupid as it seems. Could Washington actually believe that a war in Syria will actually benefit the US and its interests? Could they truly be so short-sighted and unwilling to learn from past mistakes? Although these questions would seem entirely valid, they presuppose that a war with Syria is actually the goal of a war with Syria. On the contrary, this illegal aggression against the sovereign Syrian Arab Republic is merely the opening phase of a greater regional war with the ultimate target being the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Smashing the Shiite crescent

In the decades since the revolution of 1979 which created the modern Islamic Republic of Iran, the US policy toward that country has been antagonistic and belligerent to such a degree that Iran has been forced, out of sheer necessity, to rely very heavily on its few regional and international allies. And so, given the political posture of Bashar Assad, like that of his father before him, Damascus has been viewed as Iran’s key political partner, providing Iran with a crucial ally along the border with Israel and a bridge to the Hezbollah organization in Southern Lebanon. Additionally, a multi-ethnic society like Syria with a dominant Shiite, Alawite demographic presents itself as a natural friend to Shiite Iran. However, the importance of this relationship does not stop at mere similarities.

Since the United States imposed draconian sanctions against Tehran, ostensibly over Iran’s alleged nuclear program, the economics of the Iran-Syria relationship have become even more significant. As Tehran has been increasingly frozen out of world energy markets due to US and European sanctions that make it difficult if not impossible to settle international debts with the Islamic Republic, it has been forced to find alternative methods and infrastructure to sell its oil and gas and maintain its fragile economy.

A centerpiece of this strategy is the Iran–Iraq–Syria Pipelinedeal signed last month. Intended to provide Iran with a new delivery route to the Mediterranean coast, giving it renewed access to the Eurasian landmass and markets, the pipeline is obviously a blow to US-Israeli attempts to strangle the regime in Iran economically. Syria, being the critical linchpin in this deal, figures significantly in the Iranian strategy to survive the sanctions, thereby necessitating Iranian involvement in the conflict if only to provide the critical support Assad needs to maintain control of the security of the country.

Syrians walk in a heavily damaged street in Syria’s eastern town of Deir Ezzor on August 26, 2013. (AFP Photo)

When one looks at the players involved in the war in Syria, it becomes clear that the Sunni monarchies – Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily – have committed to the war in order to ensure their own continued hegemony, especially in terms of energy production. Qatar, being one of the world’s wealthiest gas exporters, views the growing relationship between Iran and Syria, especially the gas pipeline deal, as an existential threat to their own standing. The Saudis, long since mortal enemies and rivals of the Shia Iranians, also have come to view Syria as merely a battleground in the larger proxy war with Iran.

And then of course, there’s Israel. Perched comfortably on Syria’s border, Israel has played a key role in stoking tensions and fomenting unrest on the other side of the Golan Heights. Not only did Israel carry out a number of blatantly illegal bombings inside Syria’s borders, there have been dozens of mainstream accounts, including videos, of Israeli Special forces commandos inside of Syria. Naturally, Israeli intentions are to further their own interests which for decades have been centered on the destruction of Iran, their main regional competitor and rival.

Furthermore, as renowned author and geopolitical analyst F. William Engdahlhas noted, Israel’s new gas discoveries off the Mediterranean coast add a new dimension to the struggle for dominance in the region. Engdahl writes, “Now Israel faces a strategic and very dangerous dilemma. Naturally, Israel is none too excited to see Assad’s Syria, linked to Israel’s arch foe Iran, and Iraq and Lebanon out-compete an Israeli Gas Exports to the EU markets. This could explain why Israel’s Netanyahu government has been messing inside Syria in the anti-Assad forces.”

A picture released by the US Navy shows aircrafts assigned to Carrier Air Wing 7 fly in formation above the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) on June 15, 2013 in the Mediterranean Sea. (AFP Photo/US Navy)

Of course, Israel is not an entirely independent actor. As a principal player in the US-dominated imperial system, Israel serves as the bad cop to Washington’s good cop on Iran. While the warmongers in Tel Aviv call for Iranian blood, the US is able to feign interest in nuclear negotiations to resolve the conflict and lift the sanctions. At the very same moment, the US, EU and Israel instigate civil war in Syria precisely to weaken the Iranians, already isolated politically and economically, thereby showing that not only are they not interested in peace with Iran, they are implementing a multi-phased strategy to destroy that country.

Adding insult to injury, the continued instability and violence in Iraq has politically weakened Prime Minister Maliki, a key Iranian ally. With Baghdad and Damascus in chaos, Tehran will find it very difficult to continue to support Hezbollah, another important piece on the chessboard. So one can see without great difficulty that the war in Syria is, at a fundamental level, a means to an end – the end being the total destruction of the Shia Crescent insofar as it represents resistance to the hegemonic designs of the US, Israel, and their puppet Sunni monarchies.

The enemies have been scheming for a long time … and have accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money, they took control of the world media… With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the globe… They stood behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we hear about… With their money, they formed secret organizations – such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions – which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests… They stood behind World War I …and formed the League of Nationsthrough which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains… There is no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it. [The Covenant of the Hamas -Article 22]

What has become ever more apparent in recent weeks and months is that the conflict in Syria is much larger than Syria itself. Like the Balkans almost exactly 100 years ago, Syria has become the proverbial powder keg in which Western leaders play with matches. Tragically, the diplomatic brinksmanship of the imperial powers in 1914 unleashed upon the world one of the greatest tragedies in the history of humanity: the First World War. As the United States prepares to commence yet another war, let us hope that world war is not once again the outcome.

Was the August 21 chemical attack a false flag event?

As the term is used in contemporary America, a “false flag” incident is some traumatic public event that is:

False: The public are given an untruthful version of the event by the government and the media. The falsity can range from no oneactually had been killed or hurt (it was all theater); to someof the alleged victims are real; to all the alleged victims are real but the alleged perpetrator(s) is a fall guy who was set up by the “real” conspirators behind the scenes.

Results in a “rallying around the flag” effect: Whatever the true nature of the “False flag” event, the objective is to arouse and manipulate the emotions (fear, anger, outrage, indignation) of the American people so that they’ll “rally around the flag” in an outburst of patriotism, supplying the current White House occupant and his (and his party’s) policies with their support and loyalty.

I propose that we approach the question of whether the August 21 Syrian chemical attack was a false flag by asking these questions:

Who has the motive?

Who has the means?

Who has a prior record (precedent) of instigating chemical attacks?

What evidence do we have that the rebels perpetrated the Aug. 21 chemical attack?

What does the Obama regime intend to accomplish with a military “intervention”?

1. Who has the motive?

As discussed above, Syrian government forces have been winning the civil war since June. It makes no sense for the winning side to suddenly up the stakes by resorting to chemical weapons, especially since Obama had declared the use of the same chemical weapons to be the “red line” that will trigger the United States’ intervention. In other words, by resorting to chemical weapons, Assad has everything to lose and nothing to gain. As Stratfor’s George Friedman puts it:

“Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst.”

In contrast, the jihadist rebels have been losing the civil war. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. Launching a chemical attack and killing their own people but putting the blame on the Syrian government, would bring the condemnation of the world as well as the most powerful military in the world, the United States, against their enemy — the Assad regime.

2. Who has the means?

Both the Syrian regime and the rebels have access to chemical weapons.

According to ABC News, April 23, 2013: “Videos have surfaced online of Islamist rebel fighters with vast supplies of chemicals, carrying out experiments on animals and saying they will use chemical weapons against the Assad regime.

The Assad regime is believed to have one of the biggest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world which contains the VX nerve agent and mustard gas, in addition to sarin.”

3. Who undertook previous chemical attacks?

Previous chemical attacks in the Syrian civil war had been undertaken by the jihadist rebels:

Sarin attack on March 19, 2013 in Khan al-Asal (near Aleppo): Although Israel, Britain, France and the U.S. blamed Assad, a United Nations investigation found “strong, concrete suspicions” that the rebels were responsible.

A UN report in June 2013 says a UN panel has compiled evidence that chemical weapons were not used by Assad but instead by the Muslim Brotherhood rebels.

4. Where’s the evidence?

A, Whatever evidence we have all point to the jihadist rebels as the perpetrators:

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says the Aug. 21 chemical weapon (“a homemade missile” with “chemical poison gas”) was shot “from the positions” of the rebels and is similar to the March 19 sarin-gas missile used by Syrian rebels. (Source: Voice of Russia)

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich says “there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the [chemical attack] incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack.” (Source:Russia Today)

Syrian Arab News Agency claims that the government had intercepted two phone calls of the rebels which show that the rebels are responsible for the chemical attack. The first phone call was between a rebel and “his boss” or financier from Saudi Arabia, in which the rebel boasted that one of his battalion’s achievements was the Aug. 21 attack. The second phone call revealed the cooperation between two rebel groups in bringing two bottles of sarin gas to Damascus.

A video from a Syrian TV news report claims to show chemicals and weapons seized by the Syrian government in the rebel stronghold of Jobar. Note at the :10 mark a label that reads: “Saudi Factory for Chlorine and Alkalies”.

Walid Shoebat’s Shoebat Foundation has several videos uploaded by “Free Syrian” rebels showing them threatening to use chemical weapons, loading a rocket armed with a chemical agent, as well as the voice of a rebel about using sarin gas.

The behavior of the Assad regime is not consistent with their being the guilty party:

Assad has allowed — and is allowing — UN experts to investigate sites of chemical weapon attacks. In contrast, the rebels don’t display a similar cooperative willingness.

B. Evidence of the Obama regime training and arming Syrian rebels:

According to a December 2011 email leaked by Wikileaks (see above), SOF (Special Operations Forces) teams from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey are already on the ground in Syria “focused on recce (reconnaissance) missions and training opposition forces.” The email was from a member of Stratfor who had spent an afternoon at the Pentagon with the USAF strategic studies group. From the email: “They [USAF] don’t believe U.S air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn’t reach that very public stage.”

Even worse, on January 29, 2013, the UK’s Daily Mail published an article on leaked emails proving the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action against Syria. A week after the Aug. 21 chemical attack, Patriot Action Network discovered that Daily Mail had scrubbed the article. But you can still read the original article on web archive.

Here’s a screenshot of the article as it was published on January 29th, 2013:

5. What does the Obama regime intend to accomplish with a military intervention?

Reportedly, options being considered by the Obama regime include cruise missile strikes, an air campaign, and cross-border shelling, among others.

The day after the chemical attack, on August 22, 2013, Stars and Stripes, an official Defense Department publication, published an AP report saying US officials are divided on how to respond to the chemical attack incident, with “top military leaders” cautioning against even limited action in Syria. Army General Martin E. Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said in a letter this week to a congressman that “the US military is clearly capable of taking out Assad’s air force and shifting the balance of the war toward the armed opposition. But such an approach would plunge the US into the war without offering any (end game) strategy.”

In other words, what may begin with air strikes inevitably will lead to the U.S. being stuck in yet another long drawn-out war.

Indeed, I woke up this morning to a reporter on the overnight ABC news saying that U.S. air strikes had never been successful at stopping whatever government from doing anything.

An Aug. 19-23 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 60% of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9% thought Obama should act. But Obama and Congress are hell bent on war.

Tell your so-called representatives in D.C. that you don’t want another war!!!!!

Zionist agent Barack Obama, deliberate and maniacal supporter of the Zionist entity, is hereby held directly responsible for the poison gas attacks in Syria, as is his entire cabinet.

Barack Obama has ordered US intelligence agencies to urgently establish whether hundreds have died in poison gas attacks in Syria after France said that “force” would be justified if Bashar al-Assad’s regime was responsible.

The USA and Saudi Arabia did the poison gas attacks in Syria. MSM news is lying to the country for the government about it. The international community must expose this crime before a world war goes nuclear.

According to state-run Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), during a battle with rebels yesterday the Syrian army seized a stockpile of chemicals, canisters, weapons and gear located in a warehouse tunnel in Jobar, a suburb of Damascus. In a post on the social networking website Twitter, SANA claims some soldiers involved in the battle were exposed to some kind of chemical agent and in some cases “suffocated,” but the number of those killed, if any, was not reported.

“Army heroes are entering the tunnels of the terrorists and saw chemical agents”, said SANA, as quoted by Al-Alam News Network. “It is believed that the terrorists have used chemical weapons in the area”, quoted by CNN. The Syrian government often labels members of the Free Syrian Army and other rebels as “terrorists.”

SANA says government forces were fighting rebels and pushed into Jobar where they seized the items in a warehouse. In a video by SANA and published by RT News, at least one of those items, a box labeled “Coverall – CW protective,” was made in the United States. Antidotes for chemical agents allegedly from the “The Qatari–German Company for Pharmaceutical Industries” and materials from Saudi Arabia were also among the items seized. Pictures also show grenades, rockets and what appear to be several other unknown chemical agents. Government forces say the stockpile belonged to rebels and opposition forces.

The country’s largest opposition group, The Syrian National Coalition (CNFROS), released a statement denying the use of chemical weapons in both today’s and Wednesday’s battles. They deny even possessing chemical weapons saying the “information disclosed by the regime [is] false” and the accusations attempt “to disguise and conceal his [Assad‘s] repeated and systematic crimes against Syrian civilians.”

The seizure comes just days after government forces were accused of carrying out a large-scale chemical attack in the Ghouta region of Damascus on Wednesday. Reports say anywhere between 100 and 1,300 people were killed in the attack. Prior to today’s incident and after Wednesday’s alleged chemical attack, government forces heavily bombed the area.

The fighting comes as United Nations observers arrived to investigate claims of chemical weapons use elsewhere in the nation. According to one report, government forces have retaken control of Jobar.

BREAKING NEWS: Russia and China step up warning over strike in Syria

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have “catastrophic consequences” for the region. The US and its allies are considering launching strikes on Syria in response to alleged deadly attacks last week. The US said there was “undeniable” proof of a chemical attack, on Monday. UN chemical weapons inspectors are due to start a second day of investigations in the suburbs of Damascus.

The UN team came under sniper fireas they tried to visit an area west of the city on Monday. A spokesman for UK Prime Minister David Cameron says the UK is making contingency plans for military action in Syria. Mr Cameron has cut short his holiday and returned to London to deal with the Syrian crisis. Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich has called on the international community to show “prudence” over the crisis and observe International law. ”Attempts to bypass theSecurity Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa,” he said in a statement. Late on Monday, the US said it was postponing a meeting on Syria with Russian diplomats, citing “ongoing consultations” about alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. Hours later, Russia expressed regret about the decision. The two sides had been due to meet in The Hague on Wednesday to discuss setting up an international conference on finding a political solution to the crisis. The Russian deputy defense minister, Gennadiy M. Gatilov said working out the political parameters for a resolution on Syria would be especially useful, with the threat of force hanging over the country. On Monday, Mr Cameron spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin who said there was no evidence yet that Syria had used chemical weapons against rebels, Mr Cameron’s office said.

An attack on Syria would be dangerous and irresponsible, and the world should remember the Iraq war was started by U.S. allegations of weapons of mass destruction which turned out to be false, China’s official Xinhua news agency said on Tuesday.

The official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, said Western powers were rushing to conclusions about who may have used chemical weapons in Syria before UN inspectors had completed their investigation. Both the Syrian government and rebels have blamed each other for last Wednesday’s attacks.Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieressaid three hospitals it supported in the Damascus area had treated about 3,600 patients with “neurotoxic symptoms”, of whom 355 had died. US officials said there was “little doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s government was to blame. UN inspectors spent nearly three hours in the western district of Muadhamiya on Monday where they visited two hospitals and interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and doctors. A UN spokesman said they had collected some samples. Earlier in the day, the UN convoy came under fire from unidentified snipers and was forced to turn back before resuming its journey.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-mooncondemned the shooting and asked the UN team in Syria to register a complaint. In the most forceful US reaction yet, US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday described the recent attacks in the Damascus area as a “moral obscenity”. He said the delay in allowing UN inspectors to the sites was a sign the Syrian government had something to hide. He said Washington had additional information about the attacks that it would make public in the days ahead. ”What we saw in Syria last week should “shock the conscience of the world.” It defies any code of morality,” Mr Kerry said at a news conference on Monday. ”Make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.”

Washington has recently bolstered its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean and military leaders from the US, UK and their allies have convened a meeting in Jordan. Analysts believe the most likely US action would be sea-launched cruise missiles targeting Syrian military installations. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Monday the West had not produced any proof that President Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons. He was responding to suggestions from some Western countries that military action against the Syrian government could be taken without a UN mandate. Mr Lavrov said the use of force without Security Council backing would be “a crude violation of international law”. Earlier, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC an international military response to the suspected use of chemical weapons would be “possible without the backing of the UN.”

The UN Security Council is divided, with Russia and China opposing military intervention and the UK and France warning that the UN could be bypassed if there was “great humanitarian need”.

In a column in The Timesnewspaper, formerUK PM Tony Blairhas written that if the West does not intervene to support “freedom and democracy in Egypt and Syria,” the Middle East will face catastrophe. The UN says more than 100,000 people have “allegedly” been killed since the uprising against President Assad began more than two years ago. The conflict has produced more than 1.7 million registered refugees.

The Navy Management System has been in operation since 1978 – The Navy Management Systems Support Office was established to support three existing fleet systems operating at 81 sites in 1978.

Did you catch that date?

The 1980, began a period of remarkable transformation within the U.S. Department of Defense and each of the services. The post­ Vietnam denigration of things military was reversed by dramatic international events such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the overrunning of the U.S. Embassy and taking of U.S. citizens as hostages by Iran.

On the national scene, the inauguration of President Reagan, an outspoken supporter of a strong military, led to dramatically in eased defense budgets. As part of the Reagan administration, a controversial but dynamic new Secretary of the Navy, Mr. John Lehman, began to inject a new sense of purpose and vitality into the fleet.

It was during the 1980s that a fundamental shift began-away the preeminence of strategic priorities for use of space assets, toward a balanced approach that considered tactical requirements equally valid.

4.1 Navy organizational changes

In 1981, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) created the Navy Space Systems Division (OP­943) and assigned as its first Director, Rear Admiral Bill Ramsey (a post-battle group commander), to consolidate sponsorship and oversight for all Navy space programs. Also in 1981, the Navy authorized a Space SUBSPECIALTY (SSP) CODE for officers with significant experience in the management or operation of space programs.

Along with these changes, in 1983, all Navy space systems development and acquisition was consolidated under the Navy Space Project Office (PME-106).

As these changes began to take hold, two final adjustments were made, in 1987, when the Navy Electronic Systems Command was renamed the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and OP-094 was redesignated the Space, Command and Control, and Electronic Warfare directorate.

4.2 Evolution of tactical requirements for satellite surveillance in support of over-the-horizon targeting

As the TASM development effort got underway in the mid-1970s, a dedicated but surprisingly informal effort was begun to unravel the complexities of the over-the-horizon targeting (OTH–T) problem. These efforts began with an investigation of the capabilities and limitations of the following surveillance resources:

Land and Sea-based patrol aircraft. These aircraft were capable of both “eyes-on-target” and stand-off surveillance (using radar and/or SIGINTsystems).

Underwater acoustic arrays. U.S. Navy SOSUScapabilities against Soviet submarines also had potential for application against surface units.

These informal investigations were brought into sharp focus in 1976 when Congress gave the Navy one year in which to develop a solution for targeting Teradata Active System Management (TASM), or have the program cancelled. In October 1977, the Navy provided to Congress a response that kept the program alive but which was sparse on specifics. The Navy’s concept for OTH-T was based on four elements:

Use of both aircraft and satellite surveillance, working together in some unspecified fashion.

Employment of multi-source correlation techniques such as chose tested informally as part of the OUTLAW SHARK effort.

Deployment of a radar satellite (CLIPPER BOW).

Creation of an office tasked specifically to focus on tactics development and evolution relating to OTH-T (PME-108).

This team came up with a revolutionary (and, of course, controversial) approach to the OTH-T problem, which became known as “sensor-to-shooter.” The revolutionary part of their idea was the notion of sending raw (or nearly raw) data from surveillance sensors, directly to units at sea. Their concept included providing fleet units with a capability to automatically (or semi-automatically) correlate data from several sources, in near-real-time, to produce targeting information. The controversial element of the concept was that the Navy’s Ocean Surveillance Information System [OSIS]would be bypassed. It was the team’s assessment that: (1) only a sensor-to-shooter approach would achieve the timeliness required to achieve a targeting solution; and (2) OUTLAW SHARKdemonstrations proved that afloat correlation was feasible.

The only military weather satellite, operated by the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), had its roots in the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) imagery satellite program, which began in the late 1950s.

When the first CIA U-2 reconnaissance mission flew over the Soviet Union on 4 July 1956, the Soviets tracked the flight but had no weapon with which to attack the high-flying platform. Estimates varied, but U.S. analysts knew it was only a matter of time before the Soviets would develop a weapon to knock down a U-2 (which they succeeded in doing with an SA-2 surface-to-air-missile four years later). The CIA responded to this threat by starting the SR–71development effort in 1958, but even this ultra-high speed reconnaissance aircraft had one significant limitation, the need to overfly the territory of another nation to collect images more than a few tens-of-miles inland. The CIA’s solution to this problem was to attempt to develop, in partnership with the Advanced Research Projects Agency, an imaging satellite system, code-named Discoverer.

Recognition of this problem coincided with the major successes of the R&D versions of the TIROS polar-orbiting weather satellites launched by NASA. The Air Force, which was frustrated by the decision to give the CIA the imaging satellite mission, took on the task of building a Defense Meteorological Satellite based on the proven TIROS design. The DMSP, as it became known, was to: (1) serve as a “weather scout” for the imaging satellites, to reduce wastage of film on cloud-covered targets; and (2) satisfy other DOD requirements for high-resolution weather data. [Note: The emphasis on high-resolution is important. NASA and the Weather Bureau had put the R&D TIROS initially in orbit approximately 600 miles above the earth. While this altitude provided excellent images of small portions of the Earth’s surface, weather forecasting required instantaneous coverage of larger areas. As a result, Nimbus, the operational version of TIROS, was raised to an altitude of approximately 1,000 miles. The resolution required for a weather scout could not be achieved from this altitude.]

The first DMSPwas launched in 1963 but experienced stabilization problems. Four operational DMSP satellites were launched successfully in 1965. The DMSP has been upgraded significantly over the years, but remains the only dedicated U.S. military weather satellite.

4.9.3.5 Navy efforts

In 1971, the Navy Electronics System Command borrowed an Air Force DMSP van to be used in tests of prototype AN/SMQ-10 antennas aboard USS Kitty Hawk Two large S-Band tracking antennas were installed (one on each side of the ship) and efforts were made to lock-on to the downlinks of DMSPsatellites in order to receive weather data directly aboard ship. The test was successful and led to the first prototype installation, in USS John F. Kennedy, in 1974.

The Navy has been a major beneficiary, for three decades, of weather satellite programs managed by NASA, NOAA, and the Air Force. The Navy has developed shipboard antennas, receivers, and processors that give large fleet units routine access to near-real-time data from the two civilian and one military U.S. weather satellite systems in operation today. Smaller ships still experience difficulty during independent operations in obtaining current weather data that includes satellite images and large-scale synoptic charts. The personnel of the Fleet Numerical Weather Center and the Meteorological and Oceanographic Centers (METOCs) of the Fleet CINCs have ready access to all pertinent weather data, however, and provide daily forecasts and ample warnings to all fleet units to prevent the type of disaster that struck Task Force 38 in 1944.

4.10 CINCSPACE and the Naval Space Command

4.10.1 Background: the U.S. Space Command

The idea of forming a joint command to oversee the operation of U.S. military space systems first surfaced as early as 1959 from musings by then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Arleigh Burke.

No serious effort toward forming a joint space command was started until the early 1970s when Congress urged the U.S. Air Defense Command to broaden its perspective on issues such as strategic warning, threat characterization, and command and control, to include existing and planned satellite systems. In the early 1980s, Congress took more forceful action and pushed the Air Force toward consolidation of the Air Defense Command, Air Force Space Command, and the U.S. portion of the North American Air Defense Command into a single organization.

As a result of this prodding, the Air Force formulated a concept for a U.S. Space Command, headed by a Commander-in-Chief (CINC). This concept was catalyzed and brought into much sharper focus by President Reagan in March of 1983 when he proposed a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (soon called “Star Wars” after a popular science fiction movie of the time).

The President’s vision of SDI did not delineate any specific technological approach to neutralizing nuclear weapons but the responses that emerged soon thereafter had a strong space-based component, including both satellite sensors and orbiting battle-stations. It was only a small step to envision the inclusion of antisatellite weapons in such a mix. If space was to become a legitimate theater for conflict, a CINC Space was thought by some to be a logical evolution. [The fact that no orbiting battle-stations or anti-satellite weapons were ever built as operational systems has given rise to frequent questions about the need for a joint space command to this day.]

U.S. Space Command was established on 1 October 1984. The Commander, U.S. Space Command was “triple-hatted” as Commander-in-Chief, North American Air Defense Command, and Commander, Air Force Space Command.

Naval Space Command (discussed immediately below) was designated as the naval component of the joint U.S. Space Command on 23 September 1985.

4.10.2 Naval Space Command (and related organizational issues)

On 1 October 1983, the Navy provided its most public indication of its intention to emphasize the operational aspects of space support to fleet operations. The highly publicized establishment of Naval Space Command, under the leadership of a recently-promoted, distinguished astronaut, had been wafted by Navy Secretary John Lehman to send a message that the Navy intended to remain a serious player in space activities.

When Commodore Richard Truly cook command of Naval Space Command, he had been away from the Navy for almost two decades. But he had also been on the leading edge of manned U.S. efforts in space and had significant credibility as a spokesman and advocate for Navy space interests. Naval Space Command began with 72 military and civilian personnel. The initial organization chart for the command indicated responsibility for the activities of the Navy Astronautics Group (which controlled the TRANSIT satellite navigation system and the Naval Space Surveillance Center (the U.S. CONUS-based radar space-tracking system).

It was anticipated at the time that Naval Space Command would form the final node of a triangle that included: (a) Naval Space Command, to collect and validate requirements for satellite support for fleet operations; (b) Navy Space Systems Division (OP-943), to craft and sponsor programs; and (c) NAVELEXSYSCOM (PME-106), to execute the programs and deliver space systems.

During the mid-1980s, Naval Space Command began to organize itself and to formulate its approach to Navy space activities. A Naval Space Master Plan was drafted to serve as a roadmap for future activities. A Naval Reserve Unit was commissioned on 1 October 1984 and a Marine Corps Reserve Augmentation Unit was established as part of Naval Space Command in 1987.

As organizational capabilities matured, Naval Space Command assumed operational management of Navy UHF satellite communications and was designated operational commander of the Navy Relocatable Over-the-Horizon RadarROTHR (Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar Naval Space Command was given responsibility for ROTHR because the system, although not a Space system, was viewed as a component of a wide-area surveillance “system-of-systems” which included ROTHR and satellite reconnaissance systems. Naval Space Command also assumed responsibility for the Navy SLOW WALKER program, which involved placing Navy operators at Air Force Defense Support Program (infrared warning satellite) ground stations. (See section on TENCAP, below, for more information on SLOW WALKER.)

From its inception, Naval Space Command accepted responsibility for training Navy and Marine Corps personnel concerning the potential contributions of satellite systems to their missions. These missionary activities included creation of a variety of teaching tools, including:

Senior Officers Space Awareness Wargame

Space Tactical Awareness Briefing

Space Threat Briefing

Space Cell at Naval War College Wargame

Joint Space Intelligence Operations Course

Sponsoring a Space Chair at the Naval War College

Creation of Space Support Teams to work with fleet staffs

By 1989, Naval Space Command had grown to encompass the following subordinate activities and responsibilities:

One difficulty experienced by U.S. Shuttle Astronauts taking photographs from orbit using hand-held cameras was the lack of location information on the pictures. As part of Shuttle Mission STS-32 (Columbia), Naval Space Command with Navy TENCAP support sponsored initial tests of a Latitude, Longitude, Locator System. This joint Army-Navy program, under the name HERCULES, continued over a number of Shuttle missions until a reliable system was developed. This system is still used on selected Shuttle missions.

It is a tribute to Naval Space Command that they also managed to employ MAGSAT in support of Operation Deep Freeze“ summer’ activities at the same time. Satellite communications is very difficult in Antarctica because geosynchronous satellites cannot establish line-of-sight below approximately 70 degrees south latitude. Naval Space Command established MACSAT store-and-forward nodes at: Headquarters, Commander Naval Support Force AntarcticaPt. Hueneme, California

; Detachments at Christ Church, New Zealand and Mc Murdo Station, Antarctica; and for scientific parties on the ice.

In the Fall of 1993, Naval Space Command withdrew its Detachment ECHO (SLOW WALKER) personnel from the DSP ground station in Australia for JTAGS training and redeployment for JTAGS operations.

In 1992 and 1993, Naval Space Command used R&D funds provided by Navy TENCAP to establish a prototype multi-spectral imagery (MSI) production facility as the Colorado Springs Detachment. An example of this activity was exercise TANDEM THRUST 93. During the planning phases for the exercise, which was to be executed on the island of Tinian, it was discovered that the only Defense Mapping Agency maps of Tinian dated back to 1944, were still marked CONFIDENTIAL, and had Japanese positions plotted on them in preparation for an amphibious assault. [Note: History buffs will recognize that Tinian is the island from which the nuclear attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki originated.]

4.11 Navy Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP)

4.11.1Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities

When Congress established the TENCAP program two decades ago, they set in motion a process that has frequently generated tension between the Service TENCAP programs and those responsible for developing and operating U.S. intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance systems. This section is not a comprehensive history but a chronological summary of highlights from the 19 years of the Navy TENCAP program. Throughout this section, the institutional conflicts that arose during the course of many Navy TENCAP projects are described briefly because resolving strong differences of opinion has been a consistent element of the TENCAP process. Finally, this summary focuses on “successful” efforts but, in fairness, many Navy TENCAP endeavors have not resulted in new and useful tactics, techniques, or procedures.

In 1973, the Army began to explore the potential for using national satellite reconnaissance systems in support of tactical forces in the field. These systems, also called “national technical means of verification,” had been used almost exclusively for gathering intelligence for the national command authorities and strategic forces up to that time. The Army’s efforts were focused on developing equipment that would permit Corps-level forces to receive and exploit national systems’ data in the field.

During the establishment of the program, the decision was made to limit Navy TENCAP activities to research and development, and training. The Army had a different perspective and gave its TENCAP organization responsibility for acquiring TENCAP systems and for full life-cycle support of any equipment they developed.

4.11.2 1977-1981

During the initial years of the TENCAP effort, the program’s budget was taken “out of hide” and never exceeded $1.0 million in any fiscal year. The focus of the Navy TENCAP program during this period was on training fleet personnel in the capabilities and limitations of national systems. Initial Navy TENCAP efforts involved: the injection of information on satellite reconnaissance systems into the curriculum and wargames of the Naval War College; providing materials to the Fleet Training Centers; and working with the other services to develop a Tactical Exploitation of National Systems manual.

4.11.3 1982-1983

The Navy TENCAP budget broke the $1.0 million dollar threshold for the first time and the office began to initiate research and development efforts. The first independent Navy TENCAP efforts were influenced by two studies:

The Chief of Naval Operations sponsored an Integrated Tactical Surveillance System (ITSS) study (see Section 4.7.1) which provided funds to several of the largest Department of Defense contractors for assessments of state-of-the-art capabilities that might be used for wide area surveillance against Soviet forces. As noted earlier, the ITSS studies recommended a “system-of-systems” approach to wide area surveillance, with heavy reliance on satellites and over-the-horizon-radar.

At the same time, Mr. Leo Brubaker, a maverick, mid-level analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, conducted an assessment–under the study name Sudden Dawn-of unusual phenomena uncovered during Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT)efforts using reconnaissance satellites.

In 1982, Navy TENCAP began detailed research into the tactical support potential of the Air Force’s Defense Support Program (DSP) strategic infrared warning satellites, under the project name SLOW WALKER. This effort was based in part on ITSS suggestions that infrared sensors should be part of the wide area surveillance mix and hints in the Sudden Dawn results that unexploited capabilities of the DSP satellites might have tactical applications.

4.11.4.2 TRAP

One fall-out of this intense, effective, but substantially “ad hoc” effort was demands from the fleet to install TRAP receive equipment and tactical data processors on a large number of combatants. The Navy’s Afloat Correlation System program, an effort to develop advanced tracking correlation, information management, and display capabilities for shipboard use (a program that had fiscal and schedule problems) was cancelled and the funds were used to satisfy the fleet’s demands.

4.11.4.3 High To ??

Commander Hardcastle-Taylor could not find support for his idea within the lice of Naval Intelligence or the Naval Security Group and approached Navy TENCAP which agreed to sponsor an operational test.

4.11.5 1988 -1989

NSA placed numerous roadblocks in the way of this effort, frequently citing lack of funds as the reason for not making progress. Persistence on the part of the Air Force-Navy team in validating operational requirements, coupled with Navy TENCAP funding for on-line databases and system interfaces, and a final political push by the joint StaffTENCAP office, led eventually to a prototype operational capability. Details on the application of this capability are provided below.

Navy TENCAP responded to CINCPAC‘s priority by arranging joint demonstrations of three new technical capabilities and one highly controversial operational concept, as follows:

The first operational demonstration ofAENs on the TRAPBroadcast, reporting live targets.

NSA resisted the Tactical Support Group idea throughout the year-long project planning process. The concept involved placing personnel from operational commands-people intimately familiar with threats, priorities, and joint operating procedures in the western Pacific-into one of NSA’s covert facilities, in a deliberate attempt to influence collection, processing, and reporting in real-time, for the benefit of combat units.

The NIGHT FURY Tactical Support Group comprised eight enlisted intelligence analysts (two from each service) provided by CINCPAC; and an officer-in-charge with recent VQ/EP-3E experience in the Pacific (Lieutenant Commander Scott Orosz), provided by Navy TENCAP

NIGHT FURY yielded the following improvements in joint tactics, techniques, and procedures:

[Note: Since 1990, Navy TENCAP has assigned specific names to those R&D efforts which attain project status. In compliance with CNO naming conventions, TENCAP projects are given two-word labels, the first word of which is always “Radiant.”

Many members of the national intelligence and space communities have opposed the Service TENCAP programs over the years because of their “intrusion” into areas that are often regarded as the responsibility of other organizations.

For these individuals, two historical events at the beginning of the 1990s offered hope that the TENCAP program would soon wither away. These events were: (a) the end of the Cold War, which caused national intelligence organizations to shift their focus from strategic to tactical priorities (as a matter of fiscal survival); and (b) DESERT STORM, the most significant U.S. military operation in twenty years, which forced national intelligence and space organizations to place tactical support above all other priorities. The 1990s have, instead, proved to be something of a Golden Age for the Navy TENCAP program.

The Army and Navy argued forcefully that in the post-Cold War era, and in light of DESERT STORM experiences, it was time to push existing satellite systems to the full limits of their potential. Recognizing that pushing the performance envelope would, however, produce some false alarms, the Army and Navy proposed using separate processors and the existing TRAP Broadcast, to keep tactical and strategic reporting entirely separate.

Navy TENCAPand the Army were eventually able to arrange a meeting involving: the Commander, U.S. Space Command, General, USAF; Vice Admiral the Director,Space & Electronic Warfare(on the CNO staff); Naval Space Command; and the Commander, Army Space Command. At this early 1991 meeting, General Kutyna approved the test proposals and thanked the Army and Navy for“dragging the Air Force kicking and screaming into the Twenty-First Century.”

For several additional months, however, Air Force Space Command stalled Army preparations for joint testing by finding numerous administrative reasons for not turning overcrypto keys for the DSPdownlink. In the fall of 1991, at a meeting chaired by Brigadier General Stewart, USA, Director, Plans and Policy for U.S. Space Command, Air Force Space Command finally agreed to provide the DSP downlink crypto keys to the Army.

After four successful days of testing, with cross-system fusion, an Air Force Space Wing Commander (subordinate to Air Force Space Command) initiated a “no notice’ strategic readiness exercise at the DSP European Ground Station, which required the site to terminate all on-going R&D projects.

Navy TENCAPrequests for an exemption from these rules (made to both U.S. and Air Force Space Commands) – on the basis that: (a) the extent of the R&D effort at the DSP Ground Station was merely a passive tap offthe DSP downlink; (b) Navy TENCAP had invested significant funds in leasing a satellite communications channel; and (c) the tests had been fully coordinated in advance with both U.S. and Air Force Space Commands­ were to no avail.

The Army transformed their TSD effort into the Joint Tactical Ground Station(JTAGS)program and subsequently deployed prototype systems to Germany and the Republic of Korea, where they remain today. Production JTAGS are scheduled for deployment in 1997. Naval Space Command Detachment ECHO provides 50 percent of the JTAGS manning.

An interesting sidelight of the TSD- JTAGS saga is that Air Force Space Command recognized belatedly that the Army effort was going to succeed and, after toying briefly with the notion of developing an Air Force system from scratch, went to Aerojet General Corporation (who built TSD and JTAGS for the Army) and purchased two systems. One, called ALERT, is an operational component of U.S. Space Command’s Theater Event System (with the two deployed JTAGS and TACDAR); the other is an R&D testbed under the name Shield.

4.14 Navy funding policy for space: historical perspective

The U.S. Navy clearly was (and will undoubtedly continue to be) the largest user of satellite systems for support of its operating forces. In the press of Navy budgeting for ships, aircraft, and weapon systems over the years, however, the Navy never made funding contributions for space-based systems that were commensurate with the degree of Navy’s dependence on them. Most military satellite systems are very expensive-comparable with aircraft squadrons and major ships. Until the OPNAV reorganization of 1992, there was not a high enough convergent point of sponsorship responsibility on the CNO’s staff to weigh the worth of satellites compared to the costs of additional ships, submarines, aircraft, and weapons. Instead, Navy leaders consistently hoped, and came to expect, that “someone else” (NRO, ARPA, DOD, or Air Force) would pay for the acquisition, launch and operations of the satellites.

It was this funding strategy (or lack of it), as much as any national or DOD policy constraints, that resulted in the fact that the Navy did not undertake (after the Transit navigation system in the 1960s) the development of any major satellite-systems acquisition.

4.14.1 Navy’s “leveraged funding” approach

Instead of contributing a major share of funding to space programs (or even a “fair share”, according to the Air Force), Navy chose to make minimal investments in its space program (about $300-400 million dollars per year) and attempt to leverage this minimum into the acquisition, by others, of the space-systems to support the Navy’s needs for communications, navigation, surveillance, targeting support, and environmental-data collection.

4.14.3 “Common User” requirements

The persistent hope of Congress in funding deliberations has been that space-surveillance systems can be made more affordable by designing them to meet “common-user” requirements-that is, by collecting requirements from all potentially interested users, and then designing each space system to meet some set of those requirements. That approach worked reasonably well, for example, in the acquisition of the space-based Global Positioning System for “common-user” navigation.

SPAWAR Systems Center Atlantic is a Department of the Navy organization. We meet our nation’s demands for uninterrupted vigilance, fail-safe cybersecurity, adaptive response and engineering excellence by delivering secure, integrated and innovative solutions to many naval, joint and national agencies.

We are honored to serve naval, joint and national warfighters’ unified efforts to best cope with the dangers of the 21st century and beyond by enabling them to respond to any situation, anywhere, at any time. We design, acquire, engineer and sustain the systems, sensor connections, cyber network infrastructures and knowledge management services to ensure reliable information is available to only those who need it, where and when it is needed.

2008 – The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic was commissioned September 29, 2008 during ceremonies in Charleston, S.C., Norfolk, Va., and New Orleans, La. Under the command of Captain Bruce Urbon, SSC Atlantic includes the former SSC Charleston, SSC Norfolk and SSC New Orleans, along with several sites in the continental United States and strategic satellite offices in Europe, the Middle East and Antarctica. SSC Atlantic also incorporates approximately 48 civilian former employees of SSC San Diego who work in the Tidewater, Va., area to support the Atlantic fleet. SSC Atlantic has more than 3,400 government employees, 120 military personnel and significant industry partnerships.

1999 – New Orleans, La. – The doors of SSC Atlantic’s New Orleans Office were officially opened in dedication ceremonies in May 1999, but the center’s personnel, like the city, have a long-standing relationship with the Navy. In fact, the SSC Atlantic New Orleans Office actually traces its origins back nearly a quarter of a century, when the Naval Reserve, which is headquartered in New Orleans, began using computers and information technology to automate business processes related to manpower, personnel, pay and training.

1997 – New Orleans, La. – The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition designated COMNAVRESFOR the Systems Executive Officer for Manpower and Personnel (SEO(MP)), with assigned responsibility for acquisition and program management of all Navy manpower and personnel information resources, as well as designated Department of Defense personnel and pay systems. NAVRESINFOSYSOFF worked closely with the SEO(MP) staff, providing technical execution expertise, systems engineering, and operation and maintenance of systems under the purview of the SEO(MP). The two organizations were co-located at the Naval Support Activity in New Orleans. Also in 1997, with increasing command-critical Navy work being executed in New Orleans, federal, state and local officials obtained approval from the Navy to partner with the local academic community and private industry to establish an Information Technology Center in the University of New Orleans Research and Technology Park then under construction adjacent to the University’s Lakefront campus.

1997 – Charleston, S.C. – On Sept. 30, 1997 a BRAC decision merged the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center into its parent command, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. As a result, the field activities were renamed and NISE East became SSC Charleston.

1997 – Norfolk, Va. – In October, Navy Management Systems Support Office joined with SPAWAR and became SSC Chesapeake.

1995 – New Orleans, La. – The office was formally designated the Naval Reserve Information Systems Office (NAVRESINFOSYSOFF) and conferred Echelon III status. NAVRESINFOSYSOFF became the central design agency for Naval Reserve manpower, personnel and training systems. Based on its excellent record of customer service and rapid deployment of systems, NAVRESINFOSYSOFF in 1997 was designated as the central design agency for many Navy manpower and personnel systems, and assumed responsibility for managing and maintaining dozens of Navy legacy programs.

1993 – Charleston, S.C. – A naval command was commissioned Jan. 9, 1994, establishing the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, In-Service Engineering, East Coast Division (NISE East). The consolidation was the result of the 1993 Base Closure and Realignment Commission’s decision. This new command brought together the expertise of approximately 1,000 federal workers from four former naval activities along the East Coast:

Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center in Charleston, S.C.;

Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center in Portsmouth, Va.;

Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Activity in St. Inigoes, Md.; and

A recent study shows that Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SSC) Atlantic based in Charleston plays a vital role in local, regional and national economic development, and provides a significant impact on local economies in South Carolina.

NSA’s Suite B approved crypto is strong when implemented properly. But is it? Common implementations of AES, SHA-256 and ECDSA can leak secrets via radiated emissions and power consumption measurements. See how keys can be extracted from all three algorithms and learn how developers and product integrators can address side channel vulnerabilities.

It is a painful time for Americans of my age. We have the memories of an America, glorious and honorable in her past… a past, which has been forgotten and erased, in many cases, from the history books of America’s students. Above all things our America was honorable. A young American today would be hard pressed to define “honor.” To define “dishonorable” is much easier.

As we Americans view ourselves in that inner mirror, we can know that even today, America can be defeated… only by herself. And that is the shameful path we have chosen.

One of our Founding Fathers and President, John Adams, once said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.“

Americans of my generation, who still recognize a republic, when we see one, also recognize when that republic is gone. The American republic is gone … replaced by a socialist government… complete with Central Planning.
You see, the new socialist government in America has grasped the American economic system, and by doing so, it now has absolute power over the American people. It will now rapidly proceed to destroy our liberty. Indeed, it has already begun.

There are a few basic, fundamental truths people who live in a republic know. Truths, which we Americans, have forgotten because our horrible public education system failed to educate our children over the past two generations. They are truths which all people who want to live free know. Now, I am not referring to living free under a socialist government and in a socialist society as we have now chosen. These are truths FREE MEN and FREE Women (like we used to be) know.

William J. H. Boetcker, an outspoken political conservative and Presbyterian minister is perhaps best remembered for his authorship of a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots. In that pamphlet he summed up so much of what modern day Americans have forgotten. Some the most applicable “cannots” which would apply today are summed up in the few lines which follow. Please read them and pay careful attention to what the Rev. Boetcker is saying.“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

The good reverend NAILED it! But our elite intelligentsia in the US Congress and in the White House doesn’t get it. Voltaire captured the current US Congress a very long time ago when he said: “In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.”

One of our Founding Fathers,Thomas Jefferson, would notice immediately the deep stain of socialism on the fabric of the American Republic were he to see it today under Democratic Party control. Jefferson said: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.”

If President Obama has said anything approaching truth during his meteoric rise to the Office of President and his “Bull in a China Shop” actions since taking up residency there, it is the words he uttered declaring that things will get a whole worse before they get better. That is true. Right up until the country collapses, of the weight of its government, things are going to decline.

The true movers and shakers of America understand what is happening and they are worried sick. They are seeking cover until after the collapse. Then they hope to, once again, try to build an America from the wreckage left by the socialists masquerading as democrats in charge of our government today.

It would seem, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off. For the next few years we are left to stumble about in the darkness of socialism on our own. For, you see, my fellow Americans, we got ourselves in to this mess and it is up to us to get ourselves out of it.

Unfortunately, in the “bee hive” that once was America, Obama’s fundamental change has, indeed, changed us from a colony of workers to a colony of drones. No colony, insect or human, can long endure in a drone society.

Everyone Who Wants a Drone Will Have One Soon

Drones are not like the atomic bomb. There won’t be a day when suddenly we realize that a horrible new weapon has changed the world forever. Instead, one day we’ll wake up and there’ll have been a terrorist attack by a swarm of drones launched by hand from a park across the Potomac from Washington, DC, and no one will know where they came from or who sent them. We’ll wake up one day to a drone peering in our window as preparation for a common burglary.

The price of these unmanned aerial vehicles is plummeting from two sides. On the one hand, you’ve got the toys like the $70 iHelicopter you control with an iPhone. This little guy even has two plastic missiles you can fire!

There are already pretty good surveillance drones, too. Like this $300 Parrot AR.Drone.2.0, which can shoot HD video. You control it with an iPad. That quadcopter’s users are already submitting video that looks like this:

At the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got the military-grade drones, which come with real missiles. These ones are still expensive and obviously procuring the bombs and missiles is still hard.

But the fancy, long-range drones have now left the Pentagon costing and production ecosystem. Hobbyists like Wired’s Chris Anderson are working on high-capability DIY drones. Here’s a chart showing the relationship between “drone/autopilot production volume and price.”

The upshot of all this is that it’s not going to take much to procure a drone and do anything you want with it. And if you try to outlaw them, then, well, only the outlaws (and government) will have drones.

To me, the best parallel is the improvised explosive device, the IED. This weapon gives every army/police force fits because the tech is cheap and commodity and its action is at a distance. What’s going to stop anyone from turning a cheap drone into a flying IED? Or a swarm of cheap drones into flying IEDs? What’s to stop your neighbor from hovering one above his house and streaming HD video of the neighborhood? (The current answer to that last question one is battery life on the toy UAVs, but that’s improving, too.)

Semi-autonomous flying things are already available to the general public and will continue to become more available. Yet our intuitive privacy settings, our security forces, and our sense of property all assume humans on the ground.

Let me posit this: Drones will make traditional fences as obsolete as gunpowder and cannons made city walls.

Microchip’s BodyCom™ Technology is World’s First to Use Human Bodyas a Secure, Low-Power Communication Channel

CHANDLER, Ariz., Feb., 26, 2013 [NASDAQ: MCHP] — Microchip Technology Inc., a leading provider of microcontroller, mixed-signal, analog and Flash-IP solutions, today announced from the Embedded World conference in Germany its BodyCom™ technology, which provides designers with the world’s first framework for using the human body as a secure communication channel. Compared to existing wireless methods, BodyCom technology provides lower energy consumption, while further increasing security via bidirectional authentication. Because no RF antennas are required, BodyCom technology allows for simpler circuit-level designs and a lower bill of materials (BOM). All of this is enabled by the BodyCom Development V1.0 Framework, which is supplied through free software libraries that work on all of Microchip’s more than 900 8, 16 and 32-bit PIC® microcontrollers.

BodyCom technology is activated by capacitively coupling to the human body. The system then begins communicating bidirectionally between a centralized controller and one or more wireless units. There are a broad range of applications where secure wireless communication is essential, and there is no more secure channel than the human body. This is especially true when you add bidirectional authentication that supports advanced encryption, such as KeeLoq® technology and AES. For example, BodyCom technology helps prevent the “Relay Attack” problem that is typical in automotive passive-keyless-entry security systems.

Most secure, short-range communication designs are battery powered and highly cost constrained. BodyCom technology significantly increases battery life by eliminating the need for a wireless transceiver or high-power inductive fields. It also simplifies development and lowers BOM costs by not only making antenna design unnecessary, but also by using a low-frequency framework with a common microcontroller and standard AFE frequencies (125 kHz and 8 MHz)—no external crystals are needed. And, because it complies with FCC Part 15-B for radiated emissions, BodyCom technology eliminates the cost and complexity of certification.

“BodyCom technology provides a more secure, low-cost and easy method for implementing short-range, low-data-rate wireless communication with the lowest power consumption,” said Steve Drehobl, vice president of Microchip’s MCU8 Division. “Our BodyCom Development Framework is available via free download, and it works with any of our PIC microcontrollers, which presents a very low barrier of entry for designers.”

Development Support

To further enable development and speed time to market, Microchip is also announcing the BodyCom Development Kit (part # DM160213). This kit is available today for $149, and comes with a central controller unit and two wireless mobile units.

The free BodyCom Development V1.0 Framework is also available today, and comes with a communication library, application code examples and a development GUI for use on personal computers. Additionally, application note AN1391, which provides an introduction to BodyCom technology, is available at http://www.microchip.com/get/GA5E.

For more information, contact any Microchip sales representative or authorized worldwide distributor, or visit Microchip’s Web site at http://www.microchip.com/get/GA5E. To purchase products mentioned in this press release, go to microchipDIRECT or contact one of Microchip’s authorized distribution partners.

About Microchip Technology
Microchip Technology Inc. (NASDAQ: MCHP) is a leading provider of microcontroller, mixed-signal, analog and Flash-IP solutions, providing low-risk product development, lower total system cost and faster time to market for thousands of diverse customer applications worldwide. Headquartered in Chandler, Arizona, Microchip offers outstanding technical support along with dependable delivery and quality. For more information, visit the Microchip website at http://www.microchip.com/get/DF06

For more information, contact any Microchip sales representative or authorized worldwide distributor, or visit Microchip’s Web site at http://www.microchip.com/get/GA5E. To purchase products mentioned in this press release, go to microchipDIRECT or contact one of Microchip’s authorized distribution partners.

Why The NDAA Bill is Even Scarier Than You Thought

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense.

In a nutshell, it’s the blueprint for Peacetime Martial Law and it gives the president the power to take just about anything deemed necessary for “National Defense”, whatever they decide that is. It’s peacetime, because as the title of the order says, it’s for “Preparedness.” A copy of the entire order follows the end of this story.

Under this order the heads of these cabinet level positions; Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense and Commerce can take food, livestock, fertilizer, farm equipment, all forms of energy, water resources, all forms of civil transportation (meaning any vehicles, boats, planes), and any other materials, including construction materials from wherever they are available.

Specifically, the government is allowed to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate. They decide what necessary or appropriate means.

Kent Welton writes: “This allows for the giving away of USA assets and subsidies to private companies: (b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and (c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.”

What happens if the government decides it needs all these things to be prepared, even if there is no war? You likely won’t be able to walk into a store to purchase virtually anything because it will all be requisitioned, “rationed” and controlled by the government. Construction materials, food like meat, butter and sugar, anything imported, parts, tires and fuel for vehicles, clothing, etc. will likely become unobtainable, or at least very scarce. How many things are even made here in the USA any more?

A bit of history… During WWII, price stabilization didn’t begin until May of 1942, which froze prices on nearly all every day goods and rationing started in 1943. Why would the government want to control everything before a war?

… and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day…- Samuel 8:17-18

Under this new Executive Order, cabinet heads are authorized to loan money, offer loan guarantees and even subsidize payments at above market rates (no bid contracts?) for whatever they need. This could make Solyndra or Halliburton look like Junior Achievement. Nothing like a war will generate these kinds of huge profits for the corporate “partners” and you can bet the bankers and contractors are already lining up for this one—because under this order no war is even required!

In a crisis situation, the government will be able to take whatever they need, print money to get whatever they want and distribute it as they see fit for the benefit of a “war effort” or the politically connected corporations and individuals. All other contracts except those for employment are superseded by this executive order, it’s all here in black and white.

Specifically, it orders:

“to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.

The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order’s functions includes the command and control of resources in peacetime determinations.

Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).

(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel; – White House

Additionally, each cabinet under the Executive Branch has been given specific powers when the order is executed, and include the absolute control over food, water, and other resource distributions.

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

Executive Orders created for national defense and national preparedness are not new in American history, but in each instance they brought about a Constitutional crisis that nearly led standing Presidents to hold dictatorial power over the citizenry. During the Civil War, President Lincoln halted freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while at the same time revoking Habeas Corpus and the right to a fair trial under the sixth amendment. During World War I, when Congress refused to grant Woodrow Wilson extended power over resources to help the war effort, he invoked an Executive Order which allowed him complete control over businesses, industry, transportation, food, and other economic policies.

In both cases, it was only after the death of each President that full Constitutional powers were restored to the citizens of the United States.

The economy of the United States is based on the free flow of resources, energy, and the rights of consumers to buy and sell as they see fit. Any interference in this economic process quickly leads to shortages, rising prices, and civil unrest. The purpose of President Obama signing this new Executive Order is yet unclear to some, however, it may coincide with information coming out of Israel that plans for a tactical or strategic strike on Iran. Oil prices in Europe rose over $3 a barrel for Brent crude after the Israeli actions, and US oil prices rose $2 for WTI.

The Obama administration is preparing for a long drawn out war in the Middle East, or at the very least, an expected and manufactured crisis (i.e. ISIS = Israeli , U.S. and NATO Manufactured Terror) that will require the need to override Constitutional authority and claim dominion over all resources in the United States under the guise of national defense. With the rise in Disaster Preparedness growing for both individuals and states leading up to Obama’s Executive Order, the mood of the nation points strongly towards some event or disaster that will require massive preparations on a national as well as local scale, like the U.S. manufacturing of an Ebola outbreak.

It’s All About Control!

The National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) allows members of Obama’s Cabinet to take resources such as livestock, water, fuel, farm equipment, vehicles, planes, boats, food and just about anything the government thinks it needs for “defense preparedness.” I am just skimming the surface here as there are many more details in the order. (Click here for the complete Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness – NDRP.) Many are calling this a setup for peacetime martial law. After reading the Executive Order, I don’t see how anyone could disagree with this statement, it’s All About Control!

This is an extension of the Patriot Act, which Congress basically traded liberty for so-called security. But when you look at several of the government’s big power grabbing moves, you can’t help but ask, what are they getting ready for? Is it a Middle East war that will probably turn into world war? Is it another financial meltdown worse than the one in 2008? I think it’s both.

On the war question, I have written many posts that say war is a “when” not an “if” scenario. Even our master, Israeli and it’s evil Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said he did not need the approval of the U.S. to attack Iran. Iran has said it has the right to strike first if it feels necessary, and I agree.

The world hasn’t been this close to a global war since the late 1930’s. War would plunge the world into a deep depression so fast that many could be wiped out financially literally overnight.

Another financial meltdown is not just probable but highly likely. In my opinion, and many experts, another financial crash is also a question of “when” and not “if.” The Fed pumped out $16 trillion in the wake of the last meltdown, and it has frozen interest rates at near 0% through 2014. Talk of a so-called “recovery” is preposterous with a record of at least 46.5 million Americans on food stamps and declining home values despite near record low mortgage rates. Sure, the stock market has doubled since 2009, but it was cut in half after the 2008 meltdown. How is anyone making money? Charles Biderman of the Wall Street research firm ‘TrimTabs,’ recently said, ‘the increase in stocks came mainly from trillions of dollars of new money printed by the Fed.

Shouldn’t this have fixed the economy? Shouldn’t the banks be able to go back to “mark to market” accounting and not value real estate and mortgage-backed securities at whatever the bankers think they will fetch/steal in the distant future? No way is that going to happen because nothing is fixed from the last meltdown. The failing economy was just papered over with trillions of freshly printed dollars.’

Economist Dr. Marc Faber of gloomboomdoom.com agrees the economy has been propped up by money printing, but that will not stop a financial crash forever. In a recent interview, he said, “. . . I think eventually the financial system will be an MF Global where you don’t get your money back from the banks and the investment banks and from the mutual funds and so forth and so on. And, so I think everybody has to think to himself, how do I protect myself against such a black swan event.” (Click here for the complete interview from ChrisMartenson.com) Dr. Faber is recommending physical gold and silver as portfolio insurance. (FYI, Faber also recommended buying stocks in 2009, at the very bottom of the last financial meltdown.)

The stock market is not the only part of the economy facing a crash. Star banking analyst Meredith Whitney says there is a “tidal wave” of municipal bond defaults coming. MoneyNews.com reported, “In late 2010, Whitney told 60 Minutes that municipal defaults could run up into the hundreds of billions of dollars although that hasn’t happened. Maybe not officially, but insolvency is a deepening problem, and defaults are still on the way. . . . So there’s been every effort on the part of the states to prevent this tidal wave of defaults, which is going to happen sooner or later. It’s happening at an accelerating pace. . . .You’re either willing to see it or you’ll shut your eyes, and if people want to tell me, ‘Oh, I was wrong,’ because this hasn’t played out, stay tuned.” (Click here for more on the story.)

I’m betting Ms. Whitney is right, and I think the government is betting the same way. Maybe our leaders feel they have to make all of these liberty killing moves to maintain the union in a financial catastrophe. Maybe the government sees an ominous world war on the horizon. Whatever it sees, it is definitely not good times ahead, and it can’t be that far away. The moves the government has made are not for liberty and freedom–it’s all about control.

Here is the story of Chantell and Mike Sackett, a couple who have been trying to fight the federal governments takeover of their land. Today the supreme court has finally ruled on whether property owners have a right to meaningful judicial review when the EPA seizes control of their property.

How the Nightmare began:

The whole ordeal started back in 2005 when Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a small .63 acre parcel of land with the intent to build a three-bedroom family home. The lot was in a residential area with a number of existing homes. The Sacketts obtained all the needed permits, followed all the local laws and then started work on their new home.

Just when the couple thought they had realized their dream of owning a home, they were devastated by EPA who told the couple to stop building. Without judicial hearings or notice, the EPA claimed that the Sacketts property sat on protected wetlands and ordered them to return the land to its native condition or face enormous fines. The EPA then demanded payments of over a quarter of a million dollars to “request” permission from the U.S. government to build on their own land.

Armed with what they believed to be proof that the land was not “wetlands,” the Sacketts tried to challenge the EPA’s claim. To their surprise the EPA denied their request and the Ninth Circuit ruled that they had no right to immediate judicial review.

After years of battling the EPA and racking up over one-hundred million dollars in fines, I am happy to report that the Supreme court finally ruled in the Sacketts favor. The Supreme Court held that landowners have a right to direct, meaningful judicial review if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it to be “wetlands.”

While we are happy for the Sacketts, this ordeal is far from over. The ruling today will allow for judicial review, but the Sacketts will still have to fight this battle out in the courts.